New York Times (Op-Ed)
By Charles Blow
September 23, 2015
The
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet
the Press,” “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of
this nation. I absolutely
would not agree with that.”
At
first, he stood by that outrageously prejudiced remark, but after
coming under fire from not only Muslim groups but also many
conservatives, he soon tried to walk it
back, to cushion and to caveat it.
On
Monday night, he posted a message on Facebook that included this line:
“I could never support a candidate for President of the United States
that was Muslim and had
not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.”
Then
on Tuesday, at a news conference, Carson said, “It has nothing to do
with being a Muslim.” He continued: “That was the question that was
specifically asked. If the
question had been asked about a Christian and they said, ‘Would you
support a Christian who supports establishing a theocracy?’ I would have
said no.”
Only his original comment was unambiguous: It had everything to do with being a Muslim. And it was bigoted.
Every
weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The
Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
But this isn’t Carson’s first time at this rodeo. This has become his modus operandi.
Carson
has a way of speaking in a flat, sing-song-y tone while flashing his
toothy, 100-watt smile, that can be utterly disarming, if not completely
charming.
His
undeniable pedigree as an acclaimed pediatric neurosurgeon adds an air
of gravitas to his nonsensical utterances and provides some cover for
what can be poisonously
harmful, over-the-line invectives.
Carson
says in low register what others shout in anger, and he gets a bit of a
pass because of the discordant message and method of delivery.
Just because a person is soft-spoken doesn’t mean that he is well-spoken.
Since
Carson used his 2013 speech at the National Prayer Breakfast to
criticize President Obama’s policies to his face, he has been lionized
in conservative quarters.
It’s
not that others have not criticized the president before or since, but
it was the particularity of the racial imagery of Carson’s critique —
one smart, accomplished
black man undressing another in public — that gave it particular power.
It insulated the attack from racial characterization. He said things
from the lips of a black conservative that roiled the minds of white
ones. And it represented a prominent breaking
of ranks, a slicing off of black solidarity from not only Democratic
loyalty but also from fidelity with this president.
Since then, Carson’s rhetoric has seemed to get only more reckless.
He
has called Obama a psychopath and a liar. He has compared Obama’s
supporters to Nazi sympathizers. He has said that Obamacare is the
“worst thing that has happened
in this nation since slavery,” even worse than the terrorist attacks on
9/11.
He
has asserted that being gay is “absolutely” a choice as evidenced by
people who “go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re
gay.” He later apologized
in a statement that read in part:
“I
do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual
orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful
and divisive. For that I apologize
unreservedly to all that were offended.”
And even when his rhetoric isn’t reckless, it can be wrongheaded.
He
has used the shallowness of race as a biological construct to disavow
and diminish the depth of racism as a very real cultural construct.
And
he makes the mistake many people do, of using his personal story of
success as a societal prescription for all problems. I have always held
that working hard and following
the rules are their own reward, but I am not naïve enough to believe
that personal behavior can completely countervail structural oppression.
Carson
knows that his outrageous antics in his role as the anti-Obama are a
most profitable enterprise. He mixes political critique with Christian
theological messaging
to rake in quite a bit of money on the lecture circuit. As Politico
reported in July, Carson “brought in nearly $2 million delivering
inspirational speeches to faith-based groups like Christian high schools
and pregnancy centers in 2014,” with speaking fees
ranging “from $12,320 to $48,500.”
This is a sad turn — spurred, I believe, by profit motive — for such a great legacy.
I,
like many other African-Americans, had come to see Carson as a hero
before his foray into politics because of the resonance of his personal
story — a poor inner-city
child being raised by a driven single mother who valued education and
instilled in him a sense of character that would allow him to become a
staggering success.
Carson was the embodiment of possibility. His 1990 book, “Gifted Hands,” was required reading for many young people.
But
as a political figure, his stature is diminished as he reveals himself
to be intolerant, bordering on soft bigotry, and also reckless and
needlessly inflammatory.
No one can discount what Carson accomplished professionally, but those
accomplishments must now stand shoulder to shoulder with this new
persona: whisper-soft purveyor of hyperbolic hucksterism.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment